HQs

[MOS96B2P]

Thanks for considering the possibility and for responding to all these forum posts while you're also trying to get a game out the door. [;)]

[AlbertN]

More interested in learning if Commanders can gain ratings.

Given - the HQ tale can be quite improved and expanded over time to better the game.

[Fred98]

In the past I have had ideas for HQs and this game seems to be following my wishes. My idea:

Some generals are very good at attack
Some generals are very good at defence
Some generals are very good at supply

Place a general unit on the map and any friendly units in range receive the benefits of that general. Some generals hold a higher rank and/or are better than others and so they have a greater range.

Using a mouse to attach a general to any unit is a waste of time and would cause the game to turn into a click fest. And what if you forget to attach a unit because you are busy with your turn?
.

[AlvaroSousa]

Generals do gain experience in their attributes.

[Michael T]

I can envisage some gamey situations with the current HQ setup. Like having two HQ's set, one for attacking and one for defending. Leapfrogging each other, attacking HQ moves up to influence attacks early in the turn, then the defensive HQ leapfrogs to influence defence for the opponents turn. Stuff like that.

[MOS96B2P]

ORIGINAL: Fred98

In the past I have had ideas for HQs and this game seems to be following my wishes. My idea:

Some generals are very good at attack
Some generals are very good at defence
Some generals are very good at supply

Place a general unit on the map and any friendly units in range receive the benefits of that general. Some generals hold a higher rank and/or are better than others and so they have a greater range.

Using a mouse to attach a general to any unit is a waste of time and would cause the game to turn into a click fest. And what if you forget to attach a unit because you are busy with your turn?
.

The option of assigning a unit to a HQ would cause the unit to draw its capabilities from the desired HQ. HQs have a radius of 5 hexagons (so 10 across a front). I think it will be fairly common to have a defensive capable general/HQ and an offensive capable general/HQ with overlapping command range. Especially during offensive & counter offensive operations.

This is what is likely to happen now: You move mechanized units up close to the front for the big offensive and several of your tank corps unintentionally draw their command capabilities from the tenacious defending general instead of the desired breakthrough general.

The option to assign the units to the desired HQ would take care of the above situations and would often be necessary to make a unit have the correct general/HQ capability. This assignment of units to a HQ could be done as often as a player desired so would never be a click-fest unless the player was constantly re-assigning units for some reason.

I would assign a newly fielded armored corps to a tank army (with a breakthrough general) and assign the newly fielded infantry corps with the AT gun capability to an infantry army (with the tenacious general). I would probably seldom change this initial assignment.

If you forgot to assign your unit to a HQ the game would assign the unit (as it does now) to the closest HQ which was in range (possibly with unintended consequences).

How would you suggest dealing with units unintentionally drawing general/HQ capabilities from the wrong general/HQ? Maybe there is a better way...

[AlbertN]

You can have various settings / attributes besides just that.

How many units they command? (leadership, someone can be very good but command only a handful of units; logistics - how much they affect supply instead of a fixed number, like this HQ is in a 3 supply hex, it 'spreads' supply as 4, or maybe 5, or maybe 7!; range - all HQ same range? Some can have shorter range, others longer, etc).

[MOS96B2P]

ORIGINAL: Michael T

I can envisage some gamey situations with the current HQ setup. Like having two HQ's set, one for attacking and one for defending. Leapfrogging each other, attacking HQ moves up to influence attacks early in the turn, then the defensive HQ leapfrogs to influence defence for the opponents turn. Stuff like that.

I think having units assigned to specific HQs would mitigate this potential gamey behavior. At the end of the turn when the defensive HQ comes forward it would still only control its assigned units (probably infantry corps). So would not be able to give the just finished attacking units (probably armor) a defensive General/HQ.

At least I think this is how it could be made to work.